Generating Railroad Bridge Features. Judah Lyman FRA Derald Dudley RITA April 12, 2010

Transcription

1 Generating Railroad Bridge Features Judah Lyman FRA Derald Dudley RITA April 12, 2010

2 Background The United States Department of Transportation as data steward and primary source of data. National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). New data layer supporting mission of both FRA and NTAD (RITA). 2

3 Purpose Identify Railroad bridges with existing (in-house) NTAD data Create spatial file of RR bridges Expand NTAD data layers Expand FRA s spatial data library Facilitate safety inspectors Provide public with additional data Engage as a Multi-Modal effort, with RITA and FRA Satisfy FGDC metadata standards 3

4 Key Players USDOT: RITA Data Development of custom tool Federal Railroad Administration Data Specialist to review 4

5 Scope Identify where Rail lines intersect features above grade : Water features Road and/or Transportation features Natural features (topography) Use transportation data (NTAD) to create new layer Utilize in house resources and collaborate within DOT Reasonable delivery and project development timelines Complete delivery in several phases over multiple NTAD releases 5

6 Scope Rail crossing water features NTAD 2010 Example near Tempe, AZ 6

7 Scope Rail crossing highways Future effort Example near Hawthorne, CA 7

8 Scope Rail Crossing topography Future effort Examples in NM and PA 8

9 Scope Rail Crossing Rail Future effort Example from PA 9

10 Layers Used Accepted Bridges - New Candidate Bridges - New Intersected Feature - Various Rail Network - FRA Population Centers - USACE U.S. Counties BOC World Imagery - ESRI 10

11 Bridge Data Processing Intersect Rail and Hydrogen Polygon Find Mean Center of points generated from the intersect Review Record Copy data to table

12 Bridge Data Captured FID Shape FRA_ID State Name County Name City Name Year Built Station Mile Post Region Division Sub Division Deck Spans Length Height Vertical Clearance Horizontal Clearance Weight Capacity Number of Tracks Carried Ballasted Movable Utilities Carried Passenger Amtrak Name Feature Crossed Type of Features Crossed Update Notes 12

13 Review Process: Tool Functionality Intersects, Imagery, and Manual Intervention Accuracy and Consistency Easy navigation and multiple validation options (ACCEPT, REVIEW, REJECT) 13

14 Review Process: Tool Functionality Validation 14

15 Review Process: Acceptance Criteria Physical structure exists Accurate spatial location 15

16 Review Process: Rejection/Review Criteria No Physical Structure/Abandoned track structure (REJECT) Inaccurate: Spatial Location, Attribute, or Duplicate record (REVIEW, BAD TRACK/ HYDRO) False intersect point (Reject/REJECT, BAD TRACK/HYDRO) 16

17 Review Process: Rejection/Review Criteria REJECT or REJECT, BAD TRACK: No Physical Structure or Abandoned track structure 17

18 Review Process: Rejection/Review Criteria REJECT, BAD HYDRO 18

19 Review Process: Rejection/Review Criteria REVIEW, CHECK HYDRO 19

20 Review Process: Rejection/Review Criteria REVIEW 20

21 What We Learned Networks may need updating or may be updated Not all bridges crossing water features will be identified using these datasets/methods Bridge data will only be as good as the weakest link in data (Accuracy) Smaller water features (watersheds) are not easily mapped and data is unwieldy Transportation data is limited to need and smaller water features may not be part of Geographic Transportation Picture looking beyond DOT Additional Considerations: Rail crossing Rail Tunnels Digital Elevation Modeling 21

22 Future Plans NTAD 2010: Rail crossing water features (Waterways and Hydropolygons) approximately 2500 records Rail crossing Road Rail crossing Rail Rail crossing Topography 22

23 Questions? Judah Lynam Derald Dudley 23